A Book of Books
Jan. 20th, 2005 10:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanyOne of my Xmas presents from my parents-in-law was Tolkien's Gown by Rick Gekoski. It's a book based on his Radio 4 series Rare Books, Rare People (as it proclaims on the back cover) and is about twenty twentieth century books. I found it an entertaining read, particularly as I had never really thought about books (and, thus, rare and signed first editions) from the dealer's viewpoint.
There was something of a sliding scale for me when it came to the individual chapters. I was the most interested in the books I had actually read (The Hobbit, Sons and Lovers, an OU selection from The Colossus and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), followed by the books by authors I have read or know the plot to (Lord of the Flies, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Ulysses, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Animal Farm and Poems) and then the rest.
Rick Gekoski is amusing to read, although there's no mistaking him for anything other than an literature lecturer. Many of his accounts were wonderfully entertaining. I particularly liked his observations on how the only publishers interested in Joyce's masterpiece were women, leading to these comments on a subsequent trial:
"the judge urged that Miss Anderson should not be present in the courtroom when the allegedly obscene passages were read aloud. 'I am sure,' he said gallantly, 'she didn't know the significance of what she was publishing.' However insufferable the tone, he was partly right. She had, of course, read what she had published, but how could she tell, she asked her lawyer, the book collector John Quinn, if it was legally obscene?"
Plus I'm sure that his description of T. S. Eliot as "Nobody likes a smart ass, especially one that smart" was accurate (and equally sure that all the other OU students from my tutorial group on The Waste Land would agree).
Overall it was as interesting for his encounters with the various authors (most of whom were, by his account, rather touchy) as it was for his views on the various books. Although, I occasionally thought him a little on the "standard critic" side. Comparing Harry Potter with His Dark Materials will show up the former. But I could never call the latter a "surpassingly brilliant trilogy" whilst it includes The Amber Spyglass. I'm probably alone here, but I did find that the third book had a tendency to disappear up its own a*se and was a disappointment after the other two.
Anyway, recommended if you're interested in some of the history behind those twenty books / authors.
There was something of a sliding scale for me when it came to the individual chapters. I was the most interested in the books I had actually read (The Hobbit, Sons and Lovers, an OU selection from The Colossus and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), followed by the books by authors I have read or know the plot to (Lord of the Flies, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Ulysses, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Animal Farm and Poems) and then the rest.
Rick Gekoski is amusing to read, although there's no mistaking him for anything other than an literature lecturer. Many of his accounts were wonderfully entertaining. I particularly liked his observations on how the only publishers interested in Joyce's masterpiece were women, leading to these comments on a subsequent trial:
"the judge urged that Miss Anderson should not be present in the courtroom when the allegedly obscene passages were read aloud. 'I am sure,' he said gallantly, 'she didn't know the significance of what she was publishing.' However insufferable the tone, he was partly right. She had, of course, read what she had published, but how could she tell, she asked her lawyer, the book collector John Quinn, if it was legally obscene?"
Plus I'm sure that his description of T. S. Eliot as "Nobody likes a smart ass, especially one that smart" was accurate (and equally sure that all the other OU students from my tutorial group on The Waste Land would agree).
Overall it was as interesting for his encounters with the various authors (most of whom were, by his account, rather touchy) as it was for his views on the various books. Although, I occasionally thought him a little on the "standard critic" side. Comparing Harry Potter with His Dark Materials will show up the former. But I could never call the latter a "surpassingly brilliant trilogy" whilst it includes The Amber Spyglass. I'm probably alone here, but I did find that the third book had a tendency to disappear up its own a*se and was a disappointment after the other two.
Anyway, recommended if you're interested in some of the history behind those twenty books / authors.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-21 08:43 am (UTC)Nope, you're not alone. Not even a little bit.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-21 09:22 am (UTC)It's still, to me, a more interesting piece of work than Rowling;s Potterings, but the plot got quite plainly lost.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-21 09:28 am (UTC)I reckong that's as close to objective truth as it's possible to get about these things. But of course I'd say that, cos I agree ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-21 09:39 am (UTC)Glad you both agree!
It's still, to me, a more interesting piece of work than Rowling;s Potterings, but the plot got quite plainly lost.
Although, I think the Potter stuff is a true children's series. Because it can be read by or to most children and they can get something from it. In contrast His Dark Materials is more a book for intelligent children and because they're intelligent, rather than because they are children. It has a sense of "worthiness" about it.